Originally Posted by Infinite Iteration
Not at all. I'm not saying that there is no basis or set of criteria on which to judge art or film, I'm questioning whether it is possible to postulate absolute criteria: the meaning of art, the purpose of film, the set of rules all must be weighed against. The trap isn't having standards, the trap is assuming your standards can or should be universalized.
You said
I can't judge what 'art/film' is supposed to do - the enterprise is not only inherently subjective from a qualitative standpoint, but it's meanings and purposes are likewise neither settled nor certain.
"On the whole" sometimes rendered "On the balance" - evaluating an event, phenomenon etc. in its totality with an eye toward general trends rather than paticularities and singular expressions.
Don't insult me with dictionary definitions. Your in-context explanation of what you meant is quite enough, thanks.
In this case, the 'whole' refers to the totality of American film and reflects the historical and cultural circumstances that shaped it. American cinema is uniquely commercial (and thus uniquely constrained in terms of its format, structural methods, sociopolitical content etc.), in large part because Hollywood is not only the national cinema of the United States, but the prime mediator of commercial cinema to the world. The practical effect is that American film is generally character and plot driven, structurally conventional, visually 'realistic' and philosophically moderate. It is, for the most part, a cinema of broad emotional strokes and narrow intellectual curiosity - entertaining, accessible, populist - with an emphasis on production values and direct representation.
Again I think you miss the "totality" of American cinema. There is much of American cinema which is highly specific to American audiences, further much of the indie films produced are very regionally minded. (From the small town, southern POV of Sling Blade to the New York sensibilities of Taxi Driver, to the upper crust exposure of Metropolitan) you seem to be focused on the current state of modern cinema and not the "totality" you insist you take into account. I hardly think that a subtly nuanced film like Lost in Translation qualifies, nor does The Night Listener or 'Night Mother or even The Sixth Sense or Do the Right Thing or...or...
But I think I'm beginning to understand something about your perspective. I view American culture as a work in progress, an incomplete masterpiece and American film is a reflection of that. I judge films produced in America and elsewhere (the WHOLE of them) with this in mind.
This is precisely what I was talking about when I made the statement about Kuorasawa and Miike, the cultural climate from which they come is similar but not the same, therefore using the same criteria without taking into account the differences in culture is unfair. I extended it to include cross-cultural comparisons. The narrative structure of most J-Horror films or say a Dario Argento film are nonexistent when viewed by most Americans yet still there are redeeming qualities still abound. Both very specific genres have analogous American counterparts but judging a film like William Castle's The Haunting against Kaidan using the same cultural criteria is unfair and will render an inaccurate result.
You seem to be stuck believing that the only American films are the ones released to a mass audience at least that what you seem to be saying...
The problem here is that you misunderstood my earlier point, Q.E.D.
Here's the difference - (almost) all American film is intended for international consumption - very little of the on-the-cheap productions out of Germany or Japan is intended for consumption beyond the borders of those countries, and fits much more closely with, say, direct to video releases for the US market than with cinema in a broader sense.
First off there is no quantifiable and/or obvious complete explanation therein. Re-state your point and I may reconsider otherwise…
This is patently untrue. Much is what is produced now by the larger studios is absolutely shaped and twisted by the studios to suit an international audience, this is simple economics, if you spend 120 million on a film and you only recoup about 100 million in the states you had better make it up in international distribution. This was not always the case especially in the wake of the independent boom of the 70's 80's and early 90's, and it still isn’t the case with the on-the-cheap films made in the United States.
Spending a few million in marketing and copying when the bulk of the cost of an indy film is burdened by the filmmakers, is nothing and there is no reason the film has to be marketed to an international audience, anything after that initial million or so made in the US is cake for the distributor.
All this and the fact that like our language, our filmic language is a familiar one to those overseas. We no longer have to cater our films to the tastes of Europe, Asia, Africa... they already know the language in both contexts.
I'll admit that we are going through a period when filmmaking in general is more formulaic but that period is not restricted to America. As America is still the worlds largest film market other countries are beginning to tailor their films to a more international audience (Nightwatch the recent spate of more linear-minded Martial Arts and horror films out of Hong Kong and Japan). But as you insist, if you are taking into account the entirety of film history your claim is quite obviously false.
The number of independent films produced in any given year rivals the number of films produced by Hollywood, ESPECIALLY during the 70's 80's and 90's. Further, more and more are being picked up for distribution now that the blockbuster is dying a slow painful death. Because there are fewer venues to show independent films they don't often get much time in the sun, but they do exist in large numbers.
It really doesn't matter who the film is made for (referring to your comment about the on the cheap German films) the simple fact that they are made counts against, or for the ratio.
Wire work appears in only a small percentage of Chinese films - it is over represented on US video store shelves because of the American love affair with martial arts movies. If contemporary Chinese film can be said to have given a single 'gift' to the modern cinema, it is the return of an intensely visual sensibility to film, regardless of genre.
I was being semi-sarcastic there. And the representation is more than you apparently know, the Martial arts film is still one of the primary film archetypes and the biggest INTERNATIONAL moneymakers. Again the populist films, whether seen by US audiences or not still far outnumber the "art" films of the likes of Wong Kar Wai.
Certainly, flaws can be detected in any filmmaker or national cinema. Everyone has their biases, their unexamined prejudices, their dirty little fetishes etc. I personally find the flaws of many national cinemas far less irritating than those common in American film - that hardly makes me a 'snob,' it just makes me someone with tastes that diverge from yours.
Snobbery does not exist in what you do or do not like, snobbery exists in what you will or will not watch. I will admit to a certain amount of film snobbery a certain very small amount since I am willing to watch almost anything (even Michael Bay, Armageddon is one of my favorite films, it conforms to every stereotype you mentioned but it does it well and with feeling). Stating flatly that the sum of the world’s qualitative output is far greater than that of the United States and then completely dismissing the bulk of films produced here is simple snobbery. When I mentioned the cultural curiosities that exist in the countries who's film (and apparently cultures) you hold in such high regard, it was to demonstrate the imperfection of the culture not to demonize the art that comes from it because there is that.
Now when you can explain how claiming that one cannot legitimately compare Miike to Kurosawa without being 'culturally ignorant' has **** all to do with your current claims, I'm all ears.
Taken out of contest I cannot. What I was saying was that you cannot legitimately compare the two using the same cultural criteria (see above).
I don't ignore it, but I do find the populist strain within, say, French cinema to be vastly more tolerable than the populist strain within US filmmaking, because they're still operating in different frameworks.
Huh? My point is that it is all the same thing and you CANNOT compare the two using the same cultural criteria. You confirm this by saying the framework is different for each. Seems to me that you hate the current state of American culture, which is a personal choice and not one of overall quality.
Besides - the art film to commercial crap ratio is vastly higher in the US than in most foreign cinemas (Bollywood being a notable exception, and Hong Kong at one time as well).
Again I say HUH?
You just dismissed two of the worlds most prolific film producers yet you STILL claim the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts? What about the current state of Japanese cinema, plenty of dreck there, and German...there too. Regardless who it was produced for a film produced is still a film produced.
From here to here, with nary a trace of irony...
Not Irony, my friend, sarcasm, there is a difference.
mean, dismissing the French New Wave as "Brooding bull****, mood lighting, absurdist claptrap" isn't at all snobbish...
I NEVER dismissed the whole movement as anything. I used a qualifier, I believe it was "a lot" or "much" but there are many films that came out of that period that I absolutely LOVE. I try not to paint broad strokes, although I do succumb to it from time to time.
Good for you, and I love the 'brooding bull****' for what it says about all of us. You seem to have an expectation though, that everyone should share your love of the films you like, which, to my way of thinking, is hella more 'snobbish' than saying "On the whole, I don't really like American film."
Its not the brooding I mind its the bull****. And I will say this a second time; I qualified every statement I made. There is a strain of filmmaking both foreign and domestic that is far too self-conscious for my liking. When it comes through it makes me want to throw a brick at the screen, but I have still never walked out of a film. I’m saying on the whole you fail to acknowledge the breadth of American film. I don’t see it as strictly a Foreign film phenomenon and I did not mean to imply I did.
Incidentally, you never answered my question, do you honestly think Bringing Out the Dead is a 'classic,' or were you just trying to fudge a bit and hope no one noticed, for the sake of the argument?
I didn’t answer it because it felt inconsequential to the subject at hand but yes I do. I was one of the few people who loved that film, not because of who directed it, (I didn’t know going in and I missed about 5 minutes initially) or even what is accomplished but what it tried to, I do give credit for trying. I believe it will be acknowledged as a classic (at the very least a transitional film) by the film community sooner or later. I don’t “fudge.” And I have no problem admitting I missed something. (see the last post)
Reply to Topic
